Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40500379›Full record

ArticleNature human behaviour2025

Computational basis of hierarchical and counterfactual information processing.

Mahdi Ramadan, Cheng Tang, Nicholas Watters, Mehrdad Jazayeri

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature human behaviour, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Mahdi Ramadan *Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, McGovern Institute for Brain Research, MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Cheng Tang *Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, McGovern Institute for Brain Research, MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Nicholas WattersDepartment of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, McGovern Institute for Brain Research, MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Mehrdad JazayeriDepartment of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, McGovern Institute for Brain Research, MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA. mjaz@mit.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9764-6961

Funding

National Science Foundation (NSF) NSF 20-587
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Humans solve complex multistage decision problems using hierarchical and counterfactual strategies. Here we designed a task that reliably engages these strategies and conducted hypothesis-driven experiments to identify the computational constraints that give rise to them. We found three key constraints: a bottleneck in parallel processing that promotes hierarchical analysis, a compensatory but capacity-limited counterfactual process, and working memory noise that reduces counterfactual fidelity. To test whether these strategies are computationally rational-that is, optimal given such constraints-we trained recurrent neural networks under systematically varied limitations. Only recurrent neural networks subjected to all three constraints reproduced human-like behaviour. Further analysis revealed that hierarchical, counterfactual and postdictive strategies-typically viewed as distinct-lie along a continuum of rational adaptations. These findings suggest that human decision strategies may emerge from a shared set of computational limitations, offering a unifying framework for understanding the flexibility and efficiency of human cognition.

Indexed as

CognitionDecision MakingNeural Networks, ComputerProblem SolvingAdultFemaleHumansMaleMemory, Short-TermYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID40500379
PMCPMC12454115

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.